Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (53747)	6/12/2000 11:53:00 AM
From: HairBall	Respond to of 99985

Haim R. Branistenau: Thanks for the heads up. Regards, LG

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (53747)	6/12/2000 12:37:00 PM
From: Square_Dealings	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

<< it would be important to pay attention to the financial sector. >> Just caught the cnbc coverage of a trial challenging the legality of the cozy relationships between MasterCard and Visa. Evidently these two issue from many of the same banks. MasterCard and Visa are privately held by 21,000 and 23,000 respt. independent banks. So it still really strikes me that banks have to have a huge credit exposure. How do they become a good bet in a slowing economy and rising interest rates? Doesn't the risk of credit defaults far out way the upside from growth in the sector? In addittion to carrying high consumer debt these guys have also been leveraging themselves on derivatives and gold reserves they dont have to play the market. There's your bubble. M.

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (53747)	6/12/2000 2:25:00 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Respond to of 99985

Re - MBS an interesting ruling against brokerage houses U.S. court says pension plans may sue other parties WASHINGTON, June 12 (Reuters) - A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that pension plans may sue certain parties, such as financial service companies and advisors, over money-losing transactions that are prohibited by law. Previously, fiduciaries who exercised control or authority over pension plans could be held liable for certain transactions under a federal law, the Employment Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974. But the high court, in a decision by Justice Clarence Thomas, said lawsuits also could be brought against so-called ``parties in interest'' under certain conditions for violating the law, even if they are not fiduciaries of the plan. Such a ``party in interest'' can be sued to obtain ``appropriate equitable relief'' and redress for engaging in a transaction prohibited by the law, Thomas said. The decision allowed Ameritech Corp., which is now owned by SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE:SBC - news) , and its pension plan trustee, Harris Trust and Savings Bank, to continue their efforts to recover money lost in a deal with Salomon Brothers Inc., a stock brokerage firm that is now part of Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C - news) In the late 1980s, Salomon sold for about $21 million interest in mortgage-note offerings involving two motel chains to Ameritech's pension plan. The plan lost $19.9 million after the motel chains went bankrupt. Ameritech and the Chicago-based Harris Trust sued in 1992. Salomon contended it could not be sued under the pension law because it, unlike Harris Trust, owed no fiduciary duty to the pension plan. A federal trial judge allowed the lawsuit to proceed, but a U.S. appeals court dismissed the case. The Supreme Court said the appeals court was wrong. The ruling adopted the position urged by the U.S. Justice Department, which argued that such lawsuits should be allowed to go forward.